TMI Blog1933 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liquid, he pressed her to take them, but she refused saying that she was afraid for her own life, and that the powder irritated her tongue. Thereupon he asked her to open her mouth, and approached her with the bottle, and took hold of her chin. But she snatched the bottle from him and cried out loudly, and her father and some neighbours came, and the appellant fled. The police were informed, and upon analysis, sulphate of copper was detected in the powder, but the amount was not ascertained. No poison was detected in the liquid. According to the medical evidence, copper sulphate has no direct action on the uterus, and is not harmful unless taken in sufficiently large quantities, when it may induce abortion. One to three grains may be used as an astringent, two to ten grains as an emetic, one ounce would be fatal. According to Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (Edn. 5), p. 166, there is no drug or combination of drugs which will, when taken by the mouth, cause a healthy uterus to empty itself, unless it be given in doses sufficiently large to seriously endanger, by poisoning, the life of the woman who takes it or them. 2. The defence was a denial of all the facts, some sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... felony charged, but here the attempt never could have succeeded. 4. In R. v. Cheeseman (1862) L C 140 Lord Blackburn said: There is no doubt a difference between the preparation antecedent to an offence and the actual attempt. But if the actual transaction had commenced which would have ended in the crime if not interrupted, there is clearly an attempt to commit the crime. 5. In R. v. Collins (1864) 33 LJM 177 Cockburn, C.J., following McPherson's case (1857) D B 202 held that if a person puts his hand into the pocket of another, with intent to steal what he can find there, and the pocket is empty, he cannot be convicted of an attempt to steal. Because an attempt to commit felony can only in point of law be made out where, if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out successfully, so as to constitute the offence which the accused is charged with attempting to commit. It is clear however from the illustrations to Section 511, that Lord Macaulay and his colleagues who drafted the Indian Penal Code, which was enacted in 1880, did not intend to follow these decisions, and I agree with the remarks upon this point made in Mac Crea's case ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry set of facts which might arise. So far as the law in England is concerned, in the draft Criminal Code prepared by Lord Blackburn, and Barry, Lush, and Stephen, JJ., the following definition appears (Art. 74): An attempt to commit an offence is an act done or omitted with intent to commit that offence, forming part of a series of acts or omissions which would have constituted the offence if such series of acts or omissions had not been interrupted either by the voluntary determination of the offender not to complete the offence or by some other cause. Everyone who believing that a certain state of facts exists does or omits an act the doing or omitting of which would, if that state of facts existed, be an attempt to commit an offence, attempts to commit that offence, although its commission in the manner proposed was by reason of the non-existence of that state of facts at the time of the act or omission impossible. 7. To this definition the Commissioners appended a note to the effect that the passage between the asterisks declares the law differently from R. v. Collins (1864) 33 LJM 177 which at the date of the drafting of the Code had not been overruled. The first part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. Similarly, he may fail to steal the watch of another because the latter is too strong for him, or because the watch is securely fastened by a guard. Nevertheless he may be convicted of an attempt to steal. Blackburn, and Mellor, JJ.: R. v. Hensle 11 Cox 573. 10. But if one who believes in witchcraft puts a spall on another, or burns him in effigy, or curses him with the intention of causing him hurt, and believing that his actions will have that result, he cannot in my opinion be convicted of an attempt to cause hurt. Because what he does is not an act towards the commission of that offence, but an act towards the commission of something which cannot, according to ordinary human experience result in hurt to another, within the meaning of the Penal Code. His failure to cause hurt is due to his own act or omission, that is to say, his act was intrinsically useless, or defective, or inappropriate for the purpose he had in mind, owing to the undeveloped state of his intelligence, or to ignorance of modern science. His failure was due, broadly speaking, to his own volition. Similarly, if a man with intent to hurt another by administering poison prepares and administers some harm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson making the attempt was frustrated by circumstances independent of his own volition, 12. In Queen-Empress v. Luxman Narayan Joshi (1900) 2 Bom BLR 286 Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., defined attempt as: An intentional preparatory action which failed in object through circumstances independent of the person who seeks its accomplishment. 'And in Queen-Empress v, Vinayak Narayan (1900) 2 Bom BLR 304 the same learned Judge defined attempt as when a man does an intentional act with a view to attain a certain end, and fails in his object through some circumstance independent of his own will'. 13. These also are good definitions so far as they go, but they fail to make clear that there must be something more than intention coupled with mere preparation. As was said in Raman Chettiar v. Emperor AIR 1927 Mad 77, at p. 96(of 28 Cr. L.J.): The actual transaction must have begun and an act to bear upon the mind of the victim must have been done before a preparation can be said to be an attempt. Here it is necessary to observe the distinction that 'an act to bear' is not the same thing as 'an act which has borne'. 14. In Empress v. Ganesh Balvant (191 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
